Re: Perception of WoTUG and occam and transputers

[Mario Schweigler <ms44@xxxxxxxxxx>]

For all the mentioned reasons, I'd prefer the status quo. If we *really*
need to change name, we should call the group "Communicating Process
Association" to keep at least the "CPA" abbreviation. However, cpa.org,
com, org.uk, co.uk are all taken, and, as I said before, I see no real
need to go through the hassle of a name change, especially as WoTUG is
quite a distinct brand.

Cheers,
Mario


Ruth Ivimey-Cook wrote:
> 
> Folks,
> 
> As a committee member of WoTUG I am seeking information about how an issue
> affects you (if at all) and what your thoughts are on it. I am asking you
> because occam-com is the closest WoTUG has to an email list for its
> members[1].
> 
> At the Twente conference the name WoTUG was brought up by some of the
> delegates as being a stumbling block to getting funding and achieving academic
> acceptance. They proposed that we should therefore change the name to
> something less problematic, for example "Occam User Group -- OUG"[2] or
> possibly "Communicating Process Architecture Society". No alternative name is
> especially favoured at the time.  Reasons to do this included a perception
> that we are still stuck with 80's viewpoint and technology (transputers) and
> that we were playing with a dead language (occam). This is to some extent
> based on the knowledge of how the name WoTUG used to be derived.
> 
> Opposition to changing the name, notably from some on the committee, includes
> the brand recognition we have developed over the years (about 10) and the fact
> that the world is now finally catching up with the transputer concept[3]. Some
> people have noted that more recent generations of researchers have latched on
> to transputers and occam very well and without negative connotations. It is
> also important to recognise that difficulties do exist in selecting an
> appropriate internet domain name and redirecting visitors looking for WoTUG to
> look for X instead (and not just on the internet).
> 
> Please note that it is as useful to know that this issue is not important to
> you as knowing that it is.
> 
> There has been some really exciting things happening in recent times; the work
> done on CSP and FDR has been really promising and the teams at Kent and Twente
> have shown us what can be done when you try: we on the committee want to take
> this impetus and run with it, but concerns about perception don't help.
> Please Help us to make occam, CSP and the work derived from them as well known
> in their field as SQL and relational databases are in the database world!
> 
> My thanks for your time,
> 
> Ruth Ivimey-Cook
> WoTUG Treasurer.
> 
> 1] If you would like to comment on WoTUG-managed email lists or policies
> please feel free. And if this mail doesn't get to people you feel should
> comment, do pass it on.
> 
> 2] OUG was the name the group had until Inmos requested that we change it.
> 
> 3] There are 2 recent highly parallel chips based on transputer-like cells --
> one from ?Intel, one from picoChip, both recently developed, and many of the
> supercomputers of today borrow much from the ideas.
> 
> --
> Ruth Ivimey-Cook
> Software engineer and technical writer.